Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Facts from Our First

I looked up our old place (in the D.C. suburbs) on Zillow today. According to their site, our first home has depreciated 21% since we sold it in the fall of 2006. Not near as bad as the market here in Sacramento. If we hadn't sold it, we would still have substantial equity, as the home has appreciated at an annual pace of 4.8% since our initial purchase in 2002 (a 41% CAGR).

Public Facts from Zillow:

Condo (actually a townhouse, attached on both sides, but we owned the land)
3 beds
2.5 bath
1,070 sqft
Lot 1,727 sqft
Built in 1979


sacramentia said...

"...4.8% since our initial purchase in 2002 (a 41% CAGR)." Is this math right?

Either way it seems like owning almost anywhere but Sacramento was a pretty good strategy over the last couple years.

And it sounds like you have a much nicer place to live now because of your good decision making.

Buying Time said...

Sorry I missstyped....the 4.8% is the CAGR. Good to know you are keeping me honest =)....the total growth over the time period is 41%. So the actual calculation I did was to get the CAGR.


4.8 (CAGR)
7.3 (total years of growth)

Yes, the foreclosure crisis is exacerbated by the fact that so many used their home as an ATM, which meant that any decline in price would put them underwater. This issue seems to be getting much more press lately (see CR link below).

and here:

Jacob said...

Yea I have seen several stories and they all go something like:

They bought in 1990-1999 for pennies and life was good and they made no mistakes, but like everyone else they were dumb asses and took out all the equity and now have multiple mortgages for $400k and can't make the payment...

I say tough ****. They took the money, had fun, bought toys, and now they can give the debt back to me and every other tax payer, thanks.

I saw a report, I think on CR, that showed that during the boom the average equity in america declined. Indicating that every penny of the boom and then some was spent.

I am really interested in seeing how the next segment of housing does. Let's assume the $250k and below has found a solid bottom (which I think it is just a weak bottom at best), what about the next range? No financing, no savings for down payment, lots of job losses, no move up buyers, and investors won't touch them. Now what? The next bubble might be in bulldozers...